George Miller

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. We know that that decision, that early screening, is a matter of life and death for those women, but that was of no matter to the Republicans. Now we see today a recent poll out that suggested over half of the country supports the student loans not doubling, paying for it in the manner in which the Democrats did, as opposed to 30 percent of the country that think the Republicans are on the right track in going after women's health, children's health and children's immunizations. So I would hope that we will defeat the previous question, that Mr. Hastings will be allowed to move to consider the legislation by Mr. Tierney, and that we can put this issue to rest so that families and students now sitting around trying to figure out how they're going to pay for the college educations of their children who have just been accepted to college or who are continuing in college can do that with the peace of mind of knowing that the interest rates won't double on July 1.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, and I will not object, I yield to the gentleman from Washington, the chairman of the committee.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Further reserving my right to object, Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today, as amended this morning, gives the Secretary of the Interior the authority to reopen the wilderness areas in Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks to pack and saddle animals for the 2012 and 2013 seasons. Earlier this week, I joined with my colleagues, Jim Costa, Mike Thompson, John Garamendi, and Sam Farr, in a letter to Chairman Hastings and Ranking Member Markey of the Natural Resources Committee. We asked the committee, on behalf of our California constituents, to resolve a situation that's already affecting families and businesses and harming the regional economy. In response to a court order, the National Park Service has not been allowing pack animals into the parks' wilderness areas this year. This situation has caused economic harm to outfitters, packers, guides, and other permit holders who rely on the income that the park visitors bring to the area, and it's causing visitors to reconsider their trips to the park and the wilderness areas. Today, this House is taking this action, and I want to thank Mr. Markey and Chairman Hastings. I spoke to Chairman Hastings less than 24 hours ago on the content of our letter, and both he and Mr. Nunes came forward and asked whether or not we could do this by unanimous consent, and that's why we're here this morning. I want to thank the staffs of both of the majority and the minority side of this committee for all of their work. They worked overnight because very early this morning we all signed off on this legislation. I think that this legislation is a very good deal for families and visitors to the park. It's a good deal for the businesses who depend upon spring and summer wilderness trips for their livelihood. The high country wilderness in the Sierras is one of the premier experiences the National Park System has to offer, and for many, the only way to have this experience is through use of pack animals for whatever personal reasons, either frailty, age--age would be my reason. I think it's important. I've had the honor and the pleasure to hike the high country in Kings Canyon and in Sequoia and Yosemite, and it's a unique experience, unique to the American Sierra Mountains system. I hope that the Senate will be able to take this up by unanimous consent quickly so, again, the people planning to take the trips will have certainty, the packers will have certainty, and the surrounding businesses around Sequoia-Kings Canyon Park will have certainty that the summer trade will be there. Again, I want to thank the chairman of the committee for his immediate response to our letter of concern. I want to thank my colleagues who joined me on that. With that, Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I understand the fix that the Republicans are in after just over a week ago almost unanimously voting not to extend the 3.4 percent interest rate to students, and in adopting the Ryan Republican budget, agreeing to let it go out to 6.8 percent. In fact, they use that to pay for the tax cuts for the wealthy they anticipate in their budget. So they took students' money, and the families and the savings that they were made out of--almost $16 billion over the last 4 years--and they said we're going to use this to provide tax cuts for the wealthy, and we assume that the rates will go to 6.8 percent. President Obama went on the road for 3 days, and all of a sudden Republicans have decided that they're for keeping the interest rates at 3.4 percent. You can say all of this is cynical, and I believe it is on their part, because what they really see now is an opportunity to attack women's health. They see their position of being for student loans gives them cover to attack women's health, to attack the screening for women's health in the areas of breast cancer and cervical cancer, to attack the ability of public health agencies to screen newborn infants for birth defects, to take away the ability to make sure that young people have the immunizations they need when they start school. So now, under the cover of being for student loans, they now are attacking women's health in the most cynical fashion. But you know, every now and then in this place--where it's terribly partisan; it can be very cynical, as we see with this action today with this bill--a little ray of light comes in of idealism and hopefulness and understanding. We see today that we have statements by almost all of the major student organizations saying we want that interest rate kept at 3.4 percent, but we do not want it kept at that rate at the risk of jeopardizing women's health, jeopardizing our parents' health, our mothers' health, our sisters' health, our friends' health.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. So we should understand that these students see this cynical match that is being played here, and they ask for a timeout and they say find another way to pay for this. But don't do it at the risk of birth defects for newborn infants. Don't do it at the risk of a child not being immunized against disease. Don't do it at the risk of young women and older women being screened for breast cancer and cervical cancer, where the difference can mean life or death for those women. Don't attack and abolish and repeal women's health on the backs of our students. Don't do it in our name. In our name, don't do this legislation. Vote ``no'' against this. We'll find another way to do this, but don't do this in the name of students. That's what they've asked with their opposition to this legislation.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I submit the attached letters of opposition to H.R. 4628. American Diabetes Association, April 26, 2012. Tomorrow, Friday, April 27, your Representative will cast a vote that will impact the future of programs that improve public health and prevent diabetes. Take action now to protect vital public health and prevention programs! The Prevention and Public Health Fund was established in 2010 as a national investment in prevention and public health programs over ten years. It is from this fund that the National Diabetes Prevention Program received its initial funding. But Members of Congress will be voting tomorrow on whether to fully repeal this vital fund, gutting efforts to prevent diabetes and improve our nation's overall health! We need to make sure diabetes programs and prevention efforts don't get slashed. Tell your legislators RIGHT NOW to oppose HR 4628! Nearly 26 million Americans have diabetes and another 79 million are on the brink of developing the disease. Prediabetes, diabetes and its complications already cost the nation an estimated $218 billion annually and this cost is expected to grow. If current trends continue, by the year 2050 one in three American adults will have diabetes. Diabetes prevention is an example of an effort that can save both lives and money. If brought to scale, it is estimated that the NDPP will save $191 billion in health care costs over ten years! The Prevention and Public Health Fund is a critical source of potential funding for the NDPP. Take this chance to make your voice heard and tell your Representative to oppose any efforts to eliminate the Prevention and Public Health Fund! Sincerely, L. Hunter Limbaugh, Chair of the Board, American Diabetes Association.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise in strong support of the Tierney motion, the legislation that he and Mr. Courtney of Connecticut introduced yesterday in the Congress. For years now, the Democrats have stood on the side of lower interest rates for families and for students. We have paid for 4 years of that starting in 2007. We took the money and the subsidies away from the big banks, and we recycled that on behalf of students and their families in order to lower the cost of college and to make it more affordable for those families seeking college educations for their young children. The fact of the matter is that the Republicans fought that effort. They're fighting that effort today. Actually, they were fighting it yesterday, and they changed their minds. After almost a unanimous vote on their budget--the Ryan budget, the Republican budget--to allow student interest rates to double, they have now changed their minds. That's important. That's good. We need to make sure that the rates don't double on July 1. How are you going to pay for that? We want it paid for. We don't want to do what they did last week and provide $46 billion in tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans and add it to the deficit--$46 billion in new deficit spending in 1 year. So the Speaker says, well, he's just going to take it out of the slush fund. Really? The Speaker of the House thinks that the prevention fund is a slush fund? The Speaker of the House thinks that birth defects and the funding to mitigate birth defects is a slush fund? Does the Speaker of the House really believe that a screening program for women with cervical and breast cancer is a slush fund? No. This is a matter of life and death for young children who get immunized out of the prevention fund. For women who get this screening, we know what the early detection of breast cancer means for women and their survivability rates. This isn't a slush fund; but what they're asking you to do is to repeal this fund that goes to communities all over this country in order that people will have access to this kind of preventative care. Yes, they'll say, but you took some money out of this fund to do the payroll tax reduction for the middle class. Yes, but we didn't repeal the fund. They're taking $10 billion out of the fund and repealing it and putting women and children at risk. That's not a slush fund, Mr. Speaker. That's immoral.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Thank you very much, John. Thank you for taking this floor time for this debate, and thank you for the effort and the fight that you have led on making it in America, so that, once again, America makes things, once again America has a robust manufacturing economy, whether it's this iteration of manufacturing or the next iteration of manufacturing, that America remains competitive around the world in making it in America for sale around the rest of the world. Nothing could be more important to sustaining our manufacturing base in this country, to sustaining our ability at innovation and economic growth that takes place as a result of that innovation, than the education of our young men and women throughout this country. And nothing is more important to their well-being and their families--and this is proven out every year as we do studies, that years of college and college completion are very important to the economic security of that individual and that individual and the family that he or she may form later in life. It pays huge benefits for them to go to college, and that's why we've tried to make college affordable. Many of us are very upset with the costs of college, how the costs have gone up, have doubled in many ways across the States. But the fact of the matter is, while we're struggling with the issues of cost of college and trying to get the States to do more on behalf of the their public institutions, the fact of the matter is we have to make sure that college remains affordable for young people. And that's why, in 2007, we made a decision to lower the interest rates on student loans so that it would be more affordable for the students, not only to go to college, but also then in paying back the debt that they incurred because of the subsidized student loans. And we made that effort, and we did it on bipartisan basis at that time. And President Bush signed that legislation into law, and we put some of that money into deficit reduction and into reducing the interest rates. In 2010, we followed on with legislation proposed by President Obama and our committee and others to make sure that we could increase the Pell Grant so those students most in need, those families most in need would have the Pell Grant as an underpinning of making college more affordable. We continued with the subsidized student loans to make college more affordable. We went to an income-based repayment system so that a student that may be starting out in a good career but a bad entry-level pay scale as they begin that career will be able to pay back their student loan and also continue on with their life, and as they make more money, they pay more money. And it's very important so that they can choose a profession of their passion, not just the profession that yields the most money, because many of our students, the minute they heard about this program said, I can now be a nurse, I can be a public health assistant, I can be a prosecutor, I can be a public defender, what their passion was in life. They could be a teacher and now know that they could afford to pay back their student loans. And the interest rate is very important at this time as families and young people try to figure out what their indebtedness is going to be and how they are going to pay for college, especially at this time of the year when young people are getting their acceptance notice from universities and colleges all across the country, and now they sit around the kitchen table with their families and say, How are we going to afford this? What's the debt we are going to end up with? And it's an important procedure for families to go through as they think about this. But all of a sudden, now, we see that when the President submitted his budget looking forward to July of this year, he asked that we continue to keep the interest rate at 3.4 percent. That's very important. That's the choice that President Obama made. The choice that the Republicans made in the Ryan budget was to let it go to 6.8 percent. In fact, there was a unanimous vote on the Republican side for the Ryan budget to let it go to 6.8 percent. We think that's wrong. We think that's unfortunate for families in the middle of this economic turmoil that we're coming out of in this country. They need these assurances. We think that interest rate should stay at 3.4 percent. Of course, we want to pay for it. Just as we paid for it for the first 4 years, we want to pay for it again. We believe that that should come out of the unfair tax breaks that are extended to oil companies that cannot be justified when the price of oil is $104 a barrel. They get the tax break when it's $134 a barrel. They get it when it's $150 a barrel. We think that time has come and gone, that the oil companies can continue to pursue the quest for oil and the recovery, and we appreciate that. The fact of the matter is price alone provides them the basis on which to go out and seek out the hydrocarbons necessary for our economy and for the world economy at this time. So, this is about choices. Do you believe the interest rate should be 3.4 percent or do you believe it should be 6.8 percent? By a unanimous vote, the Republicans said it should be 6.8 percent. But I have to tell you today, I'm quite excited, this dramatic turn of events where the Republicans today have said that they want to keep the interest rates at 3.4 percent, and we welcome that. We welcome the fact that when they saw the President out in the country talking to young people, talking to parents, knowing that these parents and young people are going through this process of figuring out how to finance their education, that he made a compelling argument that this interest rate should remain for the next year at 3.4 percent, that the Republicans have come and decided that they embrace that provision. I was excited when I saw their Presidential candidate said he was for this. I was excited this morning when I read in the paper that the Republican leader in the Senate said nobody is against this. Oh, yes, my friends on the other side of the aisle were unanimously against this a week ago. But I think the President sold this idea to the Nation and apparently sold the Republican Party, and we should welcome that because that's in the interest and benefit and we should work together to make sure that this happens on behalf of families and on behalf of young people. But, of course, there's always a kicker when the Republicans do this: Our choice is an unjustified tax cut to the largest oil companies in this country and, in some cases, the world, that we should stop providing these tax subsidies to those oil companies. Their choice, unfortunately, is this: to wipe out and to repeal the preventative medicine account in the Affordable Care Act, in the health care reform act, to wipe that out. So where do we find the Republicans paying for their desire now to join the President and lower the interest rates to 3.4 percent? They wipe out immunization programs for young children. So children now, we're going to send either less healthy children and children with fewer immunizations to school and in our community, or those parents are going to have to pay for it and they can't afford that. That's why we're doing that. They also chose to knock out screening programs for breast cancer. Once again, just as the Affordable Care Act extends health care to women, stops making women a preexisting condition, that their gender denies them health care automatically under the current insurance systems or makes it so expensive that it's very difficult for them or their families, just as that's within the reach of women, the Republicans take away the preventative care that extends that screening to millions of women across the country. Then, of course, the screening for birth defects for couples that are concerned or that have been told by their doctor that their child may have birth defects or that the pregnancy may be with birth defects and the choices and the difficulties that they have to make. But that screening is important in terms of early interventions, in terms of turning around the outcomes for these children. So that's where the Republicans chose to get the pay-for, to go to those most in need, to go to those who have been denied health care for generations because of their gender, because they're women, and we all know in our family, in our friends, in our neighborhood, in the communities we represent, what women encounter with breast cancer and the importance of screening. Somehow they've decided that that's how they will pay for reducing the interest rate from 6.8 percent on July 1 to 3.4 percent. I urge them to join us and to pay for this in essentially a painless way with respect to these unjustified subsidies for the largest oil companies in the country. It's very important to the agenda, Mr. Garamendi, that you have put forth, that you worked on before you ever came to the Congress, and that is building up the jobs base, the manufacturing base, recognizing the contribution that this economy can make to future energy choices, to future transportation choices all across the board, and do it here in America. But we're told even in a time of this tragic recession that we do not have enough skilled people to carry that mission out. We've got to build that. We've got to educate these young people, and that's what student loans allow to happen for people who can't simply write a check for the education of their children, who simply can't say, well, I've got a deduction, that's enough, that will take care of it for this year. Families struggle to try and accomplish what every generation has, that their children will live better, will contribute more to America than we did in our generation. My grandparents wished it for me. My parents wished it for me, and they worked hard to provide it. But when you say now, oh, but, by the way, we're not going to allow for screening for poor women who might have breast cancer, we're not going to test for birth defects for young children, we're not going to provide immunization for young children, what are they going to do, turn America into a Third World? We struggle to get the same immunizations into the hands of poor people all around the world because we recognize the public health benefits, but they've chosen this. So, I'm excited that they've seen the wrong direction that they were headed with the Ryan budget, the Republican budget, to double the interest rates on student loans. But I'm very, very concerned that they decided that they would extract the price from women and children once again, as they have in the past in their budgets. So I urge that we can get this student loan taken care of before the 66 days that you've put up there, before this time bomb goes off in the very middle-income and low-income families in America. Thank you again for making this time available for us to discuss this. We hope we'll have good action on behalf of all Americans--women, children, students, and their families. It's quite possible to do. All we have to do is reach across the aisle and work together and make sure that we don't make victims out of part of our society so that others can go to school. Going to school is important, women's health is important, childhood immunization is important, and so is dealing with birth defects in the best way we possibly can. We owe that to those families and those children. Thank you very much.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Education, obviously, is one of the most important ingredients. It's the best investment we make in terms of a return to the Treasury because of the increased productivity and success of the people who complete their education. The important factor here is that, when we think about this, we really have to develop a system where our students are engaged in a modern learning environment, where they have access to the technology, where they have access to resources outside of the traditional classroom, where their instructors, their teachers, have that kind of access so they can integrate their education into what's happening and into what these young people see as happening in the rest of the economy in the world around them. So we create that learning environment, and we can create that teaching environment by changing the way we've traditionally done things in this country. We've looked at those that are high-performing. We look around the world and say, Where are those nations that are high performing? Where are those students who are doing the best? We look at what's taking place in those countries, and we see this partnership between communities and parents and students and teachers, working out recognizing that that school is a huge economic asset of that community. It may be the most important thing where parents and the community have that say. So that's what we're trying to develop. Unfortunately, we haven't been able to get the reform in the rewrite of No Child Left Behind yet in this Congress. It has been a number of years. We weren't able to do it in the last Congress. But I want to thank the Obama administration and the Secretary of Education because, in recognizing the role that the ingredient of education plays in the economic recovery, they've gone with the Race to the Top program and with the waivers program for those States. What they're really saying is, if you want to take your State and go to the future, if you want to take your district and go to the future, we want to partner with you. What does that mean? That means that those Governors and those local superintendents of schools and those State superintendents of instruction are making a decision that they want to join in an effort to have internationally benchmarked standards and internationally benchmarked curriculum and assessments. It's no longer just filling in a bubble on a multiple choice. But because of the sophistication that we've learned in assessment, that we learned from the workplace, what we learned from employers, these students will be able to demonstrate the depth of their knowledge, their understanding. They will be richer. They will be better able to adapt to the needs of employers. They can go on and get a master's degree, or they can go on and get a college degree, or they can go on and get a doctorate degree. The fact of the matter is that the world of learning is changing dramatically, and I think that, while we're bogged down here in partisan fights, unfortunately, the administration has struck out on a bold path. I think there are now 40 States that either have applied or are hoping to apply for waivers. There are 47 Governors who have said we should have internationally benchmarked standards in this country so that we know that, when our students are learning, they're learning at the same level the students in Shanghai are learning--or in Germany or in Finland or in Singapore or in Japan--and that's the change that's possible. But the fact of the matter is that Congress has got to want to go along with that. The Governors are taking the lead. They're taking the lead. The big city mayors are taking the lead. They understand this in terms of your agenda, Congressman Garamendi, in making it in America-- jobs in their communities. That educated workforce is the most important investment they can make, and for parents, it's that good school. People always talk about remodeling their bathrooms or adding on a bedroom or landscaping the yard to add value to their homes. If you turn that into a high-performing school, you'll add more value than anything else you could possibly do. The National Real Estate Association will tell you that the first question people ask is, What school will my children go to? What district is this in? We now have the ability and the capability, and in partnering up with the entire school staff, to dramatically improve the learning environment, the teaching environment, and the outcomes for all of our students. That's the excitement, because this comes along at a time when America now realizes, yes, we thought after 1980, 1990 that we couldn't make anything in America. We now recognize that, and we now see foreign investment coming back to America, and we've got to have the talent ready to absorb that. So thank you again for this opportunity to integrate education into the Make It in America agenda. Obviously, I think it is the most important point. But as I talk to venture capitalists and to people in the high-tech fields and in the biotech fields in our State and around the country, they'll just tell you over and over again that the workforce they're looking for is a well-educated, adaptable, understanding workforce that can work with people all around the world now because you can sit in one room and work with people everywhere else in the world.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Thank you very much for the opportunity and thank you for your leadership on this.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, later today, the House will consider legislation to make it easier to pass the Republican budget and to make it easier to pass a budget that is very unfair in its makeup. It's unfair because it continues to lavish tax breaks on the wealthiest people in this country while asking that the elderly in the Medicare program and that our poorest children in our elementary schools and young people struggling to pay for their college education all pay more to make room for a tax cut for millionaires that averages $187,000 a year in a tax cut to the wealthiest people in this country. It's not about wanting to tax more; it's about wanting tax fairness. It's about recognizing the economic disparity that exists in this country and how the Tax Code continues to lavish the benefits of the taxes that people do pay back to the richest people in this country. And yet later this week, the Republicans are bringing yet another tax bill that will benefit the top 3 percent of the taxpayers in this country and add $48 billion to the deficit this year and a half a trillion dollars to the deficit over 10 years. That's not fair, it's not right, it's not equitable, and it needs to be rejected.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall No. 139 on March 28, 2012, I was unavoidably detained and unable to cast my vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on ordering the previous question, so that the House could consider the bipartisan Violence Against Women Act.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. It should be rejected by your party, and it should be rejected by my party because, when you put American people's lives and their well-being and their family incomes and the economic growth in our communities on the line for this kind of partisanship, you should stop it. You should stop it.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, you should stop banging the gavel, because this is a critical issue for the American people, for their families, for their livelihoods.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, Americans all over the country know that our economy is improving, that the unemployment number is coming down, that people are finding jobs, that small businesses are doing better; but it's a very fragile recovery. That infrastructure bill that is waiting in the Senate, which was passed 74 22, is key to continuing the economic growth in this country for businesses, for families, and for people seeking jobs who have been laid off for a very long time. But now what we see here today is a conscious decision. Rather than give the Obama administration and President Obama any help with the continuing growth in the economy, which these jobs would mean if we had a long-term extension of the highway bill for all across America, they've decided that they'll do a short-term extension. This is a party that has complained about uncertainty in the economy, about uncertainty in the business community--with a 90-day extension. Cities, counties, and State governments are going to have to rethink what they contract for--with a 90-day extension. There are those in the leadership who have already said, And then we'll need another 90 days. This construction season will be gone for equipment manufacturers, for engineers, for construction workers, all across the country in our local communities, who are in desperate need of infrastructure improvement. But they've made a decision that they're going to fight President Obama with the jobs that belong to middle class Americans all across the country--jobs that people need today to feed their families. They've made a decision: inject uncertainty. Those contracts and those jobs won't be met, and that will somehow be a victory for the Republicans in the House, but it will be a disaster for American families, for American workers, and for American businesses. This kind of cold-blooded, political calculation to use the jobs of the American working people as political cannon fodder for your agenda in order to defeat the Obama administration is outrageous.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a matter of great urgency for America's students and their families. In just 3 months, if Congress does not act, millions of Americans will be thrown deeper into debt. That's because on July 1 the interest rates on need-based student loans will double, from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent. This interest-rate hike will hit 7 million Americans who are already in financial need. With rates at historic lows, for the Congress to let these interest rates double is highway robbery. Congress should not require students and families who can least afford it to pay twice as much in interest on the same loans they got a year before at lower rates. Congress should help make college more affordable, not more expensive. Congress should help families to get out from under the crushing debt, not pile on more. Tens of thousands of students have asked Congress to act, but their pleas to help have been met with silence from the Republicans in Congress. Silence. Silence is not what they need. Action is what they need. Only Congress can set the rates for these student loans. The clock is ticking. Applications are being made to college, and the time to act is now. Congress should not let the interest student rate loans go up. Congress should not let the interest rates double on these families and these students.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to recognize and congratulate the men and women of the Richmond Police Activities League as they celebrate 30 years of public service. The Richmond Police Activities League was first established in 1982 to offer positive and proactive activities for local boys and girls between the ages of 5 and 18. Over the past three decades, Richmond PAL's programs have expanded to serve over 3,000 youth annually with excellent recreational, educational, social, and spiritual activities. Basketball, soccer, track, golf, baseball, football, and games like pool and ping-pong are great favorites at the PAL Center. They even have a state of the art recording studio which provides a unique opportunity for members to develop and showcase their talents. Furthermore, Richmond PAL's after school programs have helped increase the number of Richmond students staying in school, and have encouraged students to strive for academic excellence. With the help of volunteer teachers and tutors, many of these students have dramatically improved their reading and writing skills. In addition to the programs available at the Center, Richmond's Police Activities League offers field trips to local institutions such as the Lawrence Hall of Science, a ferry boat ride to San Francisco, or a visit to Fresno State University to explore the options of higher education. These field trips have encouraged many students to broaden their imaginations and have motivated them to achieve their goals. Mr. Speaker, I invite my colleagues to join me in recognizing the Richmond Police Activities League and the dedicated men and women who have made it a success over the past thirty years. These programs have made a difference in the lives of countless children, and PAL continues to be a positive force in our community and a priceless benefit to all residents. I am pleased to congratulate the organization for its accomplishments in public service and wish them well with all their future endeavors.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding. And just like last year, some Members of Congress and beltway talking heads are declaring the Republican budget proposal as bold and courageous. But just like last year's Republican budget, this budget proposal is neither bold nor is it courageous. It's not bold to balance your budget on the backs of working families, low-income families, and the children of this Nation. This Republican budget, in fact, mortgages an entire generation of children's education and young people's education. It mortgages their educational opportunities by making cuts at the very earliest of early childhood education, at the elementary level of education, the secondary level of education; and it's going to allow the doubling of interest rates on student loans that families have taken out to provide for the higher education that these young people need to get jobs in this economy, to get the skills that they need to be able to go to work in this economy. Yet that is going to be slashed with their cuts, with their increased costs to those individuals. It also sacrifices the health care benefits of a generation, of these same people, because under their proposal they envision the Affordable Care Act somehow going away, that they can repeal it, they can get rid of it. And that means that young people will not be able to stay on their families' policies as they finish their education or they seek out their first job, their first beginning of a career. It also ends the Medicare guarantee. It follows the path that George Bush followed when he wanted to privatize it and then again in last year's budget, when they sought to end the guarantee. They're back again to end that guarantee to our senior citizens. It's not bold. It's just plain wrong. The Affordable Care Act, in fact, strengthened Medicare. It made it more sustainable for seniors and sustainable for the taxpayers. It extended the Medicare trust fund. But that's not what the Republican budget's about. It's about extending the deficits out until sometime in 2014, while at the same time not looking at the impact of military spending or continuing the war in Afghanistan, as they accept it in their budget. And what it says is, therefore, we will shift the entire cuts to the young, to the old, to middle class families. But that cannot be allowed. The Republican budget must be rejected by this House.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise with my colleague Congressman John Garamendi to take this opportunity to recognize and congratulate Contra Costa County District 2 Supervisor Gayle Uilkema as she retires after 37 years of public service. Supervisor Uilkema began her long career in 1975 as a Lafayette Parks and Recreation Commissioner, and was soon elected to the Lafayette City Council. She served five subsequent terms on the City Council, where she left a strong legacy, after which she proudly served four terms as Mayor of Lafayette. As the longest serving member of the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors, Gayle Uilkema has worked tirelessly on behalf of her constituents. Her knowledge and experience was integral in developing Lafayette's Veterans Memorial Building and the Lafayette Library and Learning Center, two projects which provided access to resources previously unavailable to many in the community. She was also instrumental in establishing the Lafayette Redevelopment Agency, which helped pass the first Road and Drain Bond in the area. Gayle has accumulated numerous awards in the course of her career, including recognition from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and the American Association of University Women. Gayle was named Alumna of the Year by California State University--East Bay and was honored as Co-Citizen of the Year by the West County Business & Professional Association. Most recently she was recognized as the 2012 Lafayette Citizen of the Year Award for her outstanding dedication and contributions to the community. Mr. Speaker, I invite my colleagues to join me in commending Supervisor Gayle Uilkema for her committed and diligent service to Lafayette and Contra Costa County. I am pleased to join her family, colleagues, and friends in congratulating her on an outstanding career and wish her the very best as she begins a well-deserved retirement.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to recognize and congratulate Larry Sly, Executive Director for the Food Bank of Contra Costa and Solano, as he retires after 35 years of public service. A graduate of the University of California, Berkeley, Larry began his career as an Executive Director with the Food Bank of Contra Costa in 1976. Starting with just two employees, Larry brought the organization a truck and trailer, where he stored bread that he picked up from a local grocery store. Soon, people in the area from local churches began distributing this bread to underprivileged people of the community. In Larry's first year as Executive Director of the Food Bank of Contra Costa, the organization distributed approximately 36,000 pounds of food to people in need of assistance in the local area. Eventually, the Food Bank would merge with a struggling Solano County Food Bank and develop a greater outreach program within the region. Every year, with Larry's leadership, the Food Bank steadily increases the number of families who received food donations and groceries; last year they distributed over 14 million pounds of food. During his time with the Food Bank, Larry has developed successful programs to help locals and agencies distribute food in a cheaper, more efficient manner. One such program, the Senior Food Program, provides low income senior citizens the opportunity to receive free groceries each month. Another, the Farm to Kid Program, provides five pounds of food every week for low income families as well as three to five pounds of fresh produce for every child in after school programs at low-income schools. Throughout his career in public service, Larry has served at a number of statewide and national organizations, He served as Vice Chair of the Board of Directors of Feeding America and the National Food Bank Network, as well as on the Board of Directors at the California Association of Food Banks and the Emergency Food and Shelter Board in Contra Costa County. In 2009, Larry also served as Interim Executive Director for Feeding America San Diego, where he helped improve and manage the organization. Mr. Speaker, I invite this chamber to join me in recognizing Larry Sly for his commitment and significant service to the people of Contra Costa and Solano Counties. I applaud Larry's contributions on behalf of the underprivileged, and his efforts to increase awareness of hunger and food security issues throughout California and the Nation. Larry's leadership throughout his career provides a positive example for those planning to serve their communities. I am pleased to join his family, colleagues, and friends in congratulating him as he retires from the Food Bank of Contra Costa and Solano.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chair, I came to Congress in 1975. Since that time, I've been involved in the debate over national health reform proposals. Throughout these debates, lawmakers struggled with how to control costs without sacrificing quality care. Unfortunately, for decades, Congress chose to kick the can down the road while costs continue to climb and to soar. This trend ended with Affordable Care Act. For the first time, Congress put in place specific and identifiable measures that will make our health care system more transparent and efficient. This includes the creation of the Independent Payment Advisory Board. This board will be a backstop to ensure that Federal health programs operate efficiently and effectively for both seniors and taxpayers. We need to give these innovations a chance to work. Because without these innovations, there's little hope to get health care costs under control. Five hundred thirty-five Members of Congress cannot be nor should they be the doctors who think they know best of the practice of every medical field. Five hundred thirty-five Members of Congress are not immune to special interests that have a financial stake in the decisions that are made--not necessarily in the best interest of the seniors, the taxpayers, or the delivery of medicine in this country, but perhaps in the best interest of their companies. That's why the Affordable Act created an independent board of health experts to make the recommendations to improve the system. It does not usurp the role of Congress. It simply acts as a fail-safe in case government spending exceeds benchmarks. Under the law, doctors will retain full authority to recommend the treatments they think are best for patients. The law also prohibits recommendations that would ration care, change premiums, or reduce Medicare benefits. In short, this independent board is about strengthening Medicare with evidence-based decisionmaking. Without innovative reforms like the board, Medicare's future will be put in jeopardy. Kicking this can down the road any further will only bolster those who seek to kill Medicare. We must strengthen Medicare, not end the Medicare guarantee. The Affordable Care Act strengthened Medicare. It extended the life of the trust fund and has already lowered costs for millions of seniors. However, without innovation, our current system will be unsustainable for our Nation's families, businesses, and taxpayers. The Republican plan to end the Medicare guarantee is no alternative. Innovation is the alternative. I urge my colleagues to support the Independent Payment Advisory Board and reject this legislation.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with my colleague Congressman Mike Thompson to recognize Dr. William Eisenhardt, President of the California Maritime Academy, as he retires after nearly 46 years of public service and 11 years as President of the Academy. Dr. Eisenhardt is a native of Baltimore, Maryland, and a 1966 graduate of the United States Naval Academy, where he earned academic stars in engineering. During the Vietnam War, he served as a naval flight officer, earning the Air Medal and Navy Commendation Medal among other personal and unit decorations. After his active duty service he attended Duke University, where he earned his Masters and Ph.D. degrees while also teaching as a visiting professor. Before coming to the California Maritime Academy, Dr. Eisenhardt spent 18 years at the Maine Maritime Academy as a faculty member, Commandant, and then Provost. Upon leaving, he was awarded an honorary doctorate of science in recognition of his accomplishments in international maritime education and his service to the Maine Maritime Academy. Dr. Eisenhardt is a career educator with a lifelong dedication to maritime education. He began his 11 year Presidency at Cal Maritime in July 2001 and his accomplishments are numerous. Under his leadership, the Cal Maritime Academy has increased its exposure to a variety of external audiences. Dr. Eisenhardt's efforts have resulted in Cal Maritime being listed by both U.S. News and World Report and Forbes magazines as among the top public colleges in the country. During his tenure, Dr. Eisenhardt has doubled and diversified the academic offerings and enrollment at Cal Maritime. The campus has now become the most culturally diverse maritime academy in the U.S. with 20 percent of the cadets being women and over 30 percent from minority groups. Cal Maritime's operating budget has also increased by nearly 50 percent and major capital improvements have exceeded $39 million with another $46 million in the planning and construction phase. Dr. Eisenhardt has overseen a five-fold expansion in charitable giving to the campus from alumni, industry, parents and friends. He was also responsible for securing the largest charitable donation in the Academy's history: $3 million from the American Bureau of Shipping, used to establish the ABS School of Maritime Policy and Management. Cal Maritime also boasts the world's finest Maritime Simulation Center, a new $15 million facility for which he led the planning and development. In the 2008 2010 academic years the Academy was awarded just under $11 million in federal grants and special project allocations, the most ever in the history of the institution. Dr. Eisenhardt currently serves as a board member of the Solano County Economic Development Corporation and is the former Chair of the Council of State Maritime Academies & Colleges Consortium. He was active in the founding of the International Association of Maritime Universities and currently serves on its Executive Board. In addition, he serves on the Board of Directors of the San Francisco Marine Exchange and the Northern California Maritime Security Committee wherein he was awarded a U.S. Coast Guard Certificate of Merit in 2005 for providing leadership in helping to set up maritime security protocols. Mr. Speaker, I invite my colleagues to join me in honoring Dr. William Eisenhardt for his tireless and dedicated service to his country and higher education. I also join his wife Kathryn, two daughters Elizabeth and Kristin, colleagues, and friends in congratulating him on a successful and fulfilling career, and a very well-deserved retirement.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. That is not acceptable to any Member of this Congress about their own State. Why is it acceptable all of a sudden to do that to the State of California? You simply cannot do this. We have in place a process that is working today for the first time in 40 years, and that's why the resources director of the State of California, that's why both of our Senators oppose this process, because this group of people had never come together in the last 40 years to work on California problems. The urban users, the rural users, the agricultural interests, the manufacturing interests, the municipal interests, with the blessings of the State legislature that set out the guidelines, that set out the goals, that set out the purposes--that's going on today. Every party to that agreement except for this select few of special interests. This party is the only party that says ``blow it up.'' Use the United States Congress to blow up a process that for the first time has the possibility of solving the water problems in this State and making it sustainable for agriculture, for the environment, for manufacturing, and for municipal use in our State. Yes, we have a tough problem. We have 30 million people. The drought that they talk about, that was imposed.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise in opposition to the rule, and I rise in opposition to the legislation. There is going to be an argument today about science. This bill makes it very simple. It ends that argument. It simply says that we will use the science that was in effect in 1994. We use the science that's what, 18 years ago? That will be the science for the purposes of this legislation. You might as well tell the people of California to use the same telecommunications systems they had in 1994, no iPhones, no BlackBerries, no advancement in knowledge, skills, training, or technology. It's a pretty simplistic approach to science. You might say it's mindless. The Federal Government is going to come in and tell the State of California that it cannot use its regulatory process or scientific process to determine what's best for its State. As the Attorney General of our State says and the Supreme Court says, the Federal Government simply cannot commandeer the legislatures of the States, but that's what this legislation does. I love the fact that we have people here with wonderful conservative credentials who are now suggesting the Federal Government should preempt California law, preempt the California Legislature, preempt the Federal law, and go back to 1994. Where else would you take America back to 1994 in terms of imposing the will of the Congress on the States, and that's why almost all of the Western States, their water agencies, their executive offices, oppose this legislation, because this is the greatest preemption of State water rights in the history of this country. The people who are supporting this, these heavily subsidized farmers who have more than one or two or three subsidies from the Federal Government to grow their crops, are now insisting that the Federal Government take what is a contract right. It's a contract right, that's it. They want to turn it into perpetuity. They want the water in perpetuity, and the hell with the rest of the State of California. That obviously isn't acceptable.